Download PDF
J Reconstr Microsurg 2023; 39(02): 138-147
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1750124
Original Article

Perforator Characteristics and Impact on Postoperative Outcomes in DIEP Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pathik Aravind   *
1   Department of Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
,
Salih Colakoglu    *
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Myan Bhoopalam
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
,
Ahmed Ibrahim
3   Private Practice at Clevens Face and Body Specialists, Melbourne, Florida
,
David Mathes
4   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Colorado – CU Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
,
Christodoulos Kaoutzanis
4   Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Colorado – CU Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, Colorado
,
Marc Mureau 
5   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
,
Sashank Reddy
2   Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background High-quality evidence on perforator selection in deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap harvesting is lacking, making preoperative planning and choice of perforators “surgeon-specific.” This lack of consensus is a subject of continuous debate among microsurgeons. We aimed to systematically review perforator characteristics and their impact on DIEP flap breast reconstruction outcomes.

Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis across six databases: ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Medline, Ovid Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science for all studies on DIEP flap breast reconstruction focused on perforator characteristics—caliber, number, and location. The primary goal was to analyze the impact of perforator characteristics on partial and/or total flap failure and fat necrosis. Data was analyzed using RevMan V5.3.

Results Initial search gave us 2,768 articles of which 17 were included in our review. Pooled analysis did not show any statistically significant correlations between partial and/or total flap failure and perforator number, or perforator location. Sensitivity analysis accounting for heterogeneity across studies showed that, the risk for fat necrosis was significantly higher if single perforators (relative risk [RR] = 2.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.5–2.6, I 2 = 39%) and medial row perforators (RR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.8–3.9, I 2 = 0%) were used.

Conclusion Our findings suggest that a single dominant perforator and medial row perforators may be associated with higher risk of fat necrosis after DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Adopting a standardized perforator selection algorithm may facilitate operative decision making, shorten the learning curve for novice surgeons, and optimize postoperative outcomes by minimizing the burden of major complications. This in turn would help improve patient satisfaction and quality of life.

Keywords

perforator - skin necrosis - complication - DIEP flap - breast reconstruction

* These authors contributed to the conduct of this study equally and are to be considered co-first authors.


Supplementary Material



Publication History

Received: 08 August 2021

Accepted: 23 April 2021

Article published online:
17 June 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. . 2019 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report; 2019. Accessed April 6, 2021 at: https://www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2019/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2019.pdf
    PubMed
  • 2 He WY, El Eter L, Yesantharao P. et al. Complications and patient-reported outcomes after TRAM and DIEP flaps: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2020; 8 (10) e3120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Skraastad BK, Knudsen C, Jackson C, Utheim TP, Pripp AH, Tønseth KA. Quality of life, patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcome after delayed breast reconstruction using DIEP flap: a 10 years' follow-up survey. J Plast Surg Hand Surg 2019; 53 (02) 119-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Mulvey CL, Cooney CM, Daily FF. et al. Increased flap weight and decreased perforator number predict fat necrosis in DIEP breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2013; 1 (02) 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Grover R, Nelson JA, Fischer JP, Kovach SJ, Serletti JM, Wu LC. The impact of perforator number on deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Arch Plast Surg 2014; 41 (01) 63-70
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kamali P, Lee M, Becherer BE. et al. Medial row perforators are associated with higher rates of fat necrosis in bilateral DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140 (01) 19-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Teunis T, Heerma van Voss MR, Kon M, van Maurik JFMM. CT-angiography prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Microsurgery 2013; 33 (06) 496-502
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009; 339 (7716): b2535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J. et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009; 339: b2700
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions | Cochrane Training. Accessed March 24, 2021 at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
    PubMed
  • 11 Garvey PB, Salavati S, Feng L, Butler CE. Abdominal donor-site outcomes for medial versus lateral deep inferior epigastric artery branch perforator harvest. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 127 (06) 2198-2205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Garvey PB, Salavati S, Feng L, Butler CE. Perfusion-related complications are similar for DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps harvested on medial or lateral deep inferior epigastric artery branch perforators for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128 (06) 581e-589e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: i4919
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Yu B, Gastwirth JL. A method of assessing the sensitivity of the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test to an unobserved confounder. Philos Trans- Royal Soc, Math Phys Eng Sci 2008; 366 (1874): 2377-2388
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Cochrane Review.. Chapter 10: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses | Cochrane Training. Accessed April 19, 2021 at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Uppal RS, Casaer B, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P. The efficacy of preoperative mapping of perforators in reducing operative times and complications in perforator flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2009; 62 (07) 859-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Baumann DP, Lin HY, Chevray PM. Perforator number predicts fat necrosis in a prospective analysis of breast reconstruction with free TRAM, DIEP, and SIEA flaps. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (05) 1335-1341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gill PS, Hunt JP, Guerra AB. et al. A 10-year retrospective review of 758 DIEP flaps for breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (04) 1153-1160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Bailey SH, Saint-Cyr M, Wong C. et al. The single dominant medial row perforator DIEP flap in breast reconstruction: three-dimensional perforasome and clinical results. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 126 (03) 739-751
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Gravvanis A, Tsoutsos D, Papanikolaou G, Diab A, Lambropoulou P, Karakitsos D. Refining perforator selection for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap: the impact of the dominant venous perforator. Microsurgery 2014; 34 (03) 169-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Mohan AT, Zhu L, Wang Z, Vijayasekaran A, Saint-Cyr M. Techniques and perforator selection in single, dominant DIEP flap breast reconstruction: algorithmic approach to maximize efficiency and safety. Plast Reconstr Surg 2016; 138 (05) 790e-803e
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Zhang A, Dayicioglu D. Outcomes of 270 consecutive deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg 2018; 80 (6S, Suppl 6): S388-S394
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Bozikov K, Arnez T, Hertl K, Arnez ZM. Fat necrosis in free DIEAP flaps: incidence, risk, and predictor factors. Ann Plast Surg 2009; 63 (02) 138-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Lee KT, Lee JE, Nam SJ, Han BK, Mun GH. Is Holm Zone III safe from fat necrosis in medial row perforator-based deep inferior epigastric perforator flaps?. Microsurgery 2015; 35 (04) 272-278
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Hembd A, Teotia SS, Zhu H, Haddock NT. Optimizing perforator selection: a multivariable analysis of predictors for fat necrosis and abdominal morbidity in DIEP flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (03) 583-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Uda H, Tomioka YK, Sarukawa S, Sunaga A, Sugawara Y. Comparison of abdominal wall morbidity between medial and lateral row-based deep inferior epigastric perforator flap. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2015; 68 (11) 1550-1555
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Uda H, Tomioka YK, Sarukawa S. et al. Abdominal morbidity after single- versus double-pedicled deep inferior epigastric perforator flap use. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2016; 69 (09) 1178-1183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Dusseldorp JR, Pennington DG. Quantifying blood flow in the DIEP flap: an ultrasonographic study. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2014; 2 (10) e228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Patel SA, Keller A. A theoretical model describing arterial flow in the DIEP flap related to number and size of perforator vessels. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2008; 61 (11) 1316-1320 , discussion 1320
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wong C, Saint-Cyr M, Mojallal A. et al. Perforasomes of the DIEP flap: vascular anatomy of the lateral versus medial row perforators and clinical implications. Plast Reconstr Surg 2010; 125 (03) 772-782
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Itoh Y, Arai K. The deep inferior epigastric artery free skin flap: anatomic study and clinical application. Plast Reconstr Surg 1993; 91 (05) 853-863 , discussion 864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Munhoz AM, Ishida LH, Sturtz GP. et al. Importance of lateral row perforator vessels in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap harvesting. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 113 (02) 517-524
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kroll SS, Marchi M. Comparison of strategies for preventing abdominal-wall weakness after TRAM flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 1992; 89 (06) 1045-1051 , discussion 1052–1053
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hartrampf Jr CR. Abdominal wall competence in transverse abdominal island flap operations. Ann Plast Surg 1984; 12 (02) 139-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Kiil BJ. et al. Avoiding denervation of rectus abdominis in DIEP flap harvest II: an intraoperative assessment of the nerves to rectus. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (05) 1321-1325
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Rozen WM, Ashton MW, Murray ACA, Taylor GI. Avoiding denervation of rectus abdominis in DIEP flap harvest: the importance of medial row perforators. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 122 (03) 710-716
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Lee K-T, Eom Y, Jeon B-J, Mun G-H. Vertical spacing of perforators in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction can affect the outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 142 (02) 319-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Daly LT, Doval AF, Lin SJ, Tobias A, Lee BT, Dowlatshahi AS. Role of CTA in women with abdominal scars undergoing DIEP breast reconstruction: review of 1,187 flaps. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (04) 294-300
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Lindsey Jr JT, Smith C, Lee J, St Hilaire H, Lindsey Sr JT. Mapping 216 perforator flaps using highly portable tablet-based color Doppler ultrasound (PT-CDU). . [published online ahead of print, 2021 Aug 24] J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1731676.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Fuse Y, Yoshimatsu H, Karakawa R, Yano T. Novel classification of the branching patterns of the superficial branch and the deep branch of the superficial circumflex iliac artery and the superficial inferior epigastric artery on computed tomographic angiography. [published online ahead of print, 2021 Aug 28] J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1733976.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Boer VB, van Wingerden JJ, Wever CF, Beets MR, Verhaegen PD, Hamdi M. Perforator mapping practice for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstructions: a survey of the Benelux region. J Reconstr Microsurg 2021; 37 (02) 111-118
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 DelMauro MA, Moon VA. Obesity and the abdominal wall vasculature: correlating BMI with perforator anatomy. J Reconstr Microsurg 2020; 36 (06) 438-444
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar